Advocacy
Amicus Curiae
Latin for "friend of the court." Plural is "amici curiae." Frequently, a person or group who is not a party to an action, but has a strong interest in the matter, will petition the court for permission to submit a brief in the action with the intent of influencing the court's decision. Such briefs are called "amicus briefs." (Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School)
Over the years, Lawyers Club has signed on to many important amicus curiae briefs.
2026
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al. April 2026
Introduction: Amici are bar associations and lawyer membership associations across the country who oppose the administration’s assault on the independence of the legal profession. An attack on lawyers’ independence is an attack on constitutional democracy and the rule of law. By retaliating against law firms for representing disfavored parties and advocating for disfavored positions, the Executive Orders targeting Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey undermine the bar’s role as an independent safeguard of the legal system.
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
Tudor v. Southeastern Oklahoma State University, August 2018
Summary of Case: A professor underwent a gender transition from male to female while employed as a tenure track professor at Southeastern Oklahoma State University. The school denied her application for tenure and a jury found that the school's reasons for denying her application and not allowing her to re-apply for tenure were pretext for sex discriminatio nand retaliation. After trial, the professor moved for reinstatement as an Associate Professor with tenure, or in the alternative, for front pay for her remaining work life expectancy. The District Court denied her request for reinstatement, awarded an adjusted front pay, and remitted the jury's award. The brief argues that the District Court abused its discretion by (1) failing to conduct a thorough assessment of the professor's request for reinstatement and (2) ignoring critical evidence when adjusting the professor's alternative front pay remedy.
Kollaritsch v. Michigan State University, October 2018
Summary of Case: The facts of the case involve 4 MSU female students who allege that they were sexually assaulted by other students. The district court found that for three of these young women, the allegations in their complaints were sufficient to show that MSU responded with deliberate indifference (e.g., the University did not investigate their reports of assault promptly and did not provide them with accommodations to prevent further harassment), which caused plaintiffs to be deprived of educational opportunities. MSU filed an interlocutory appeal, erroneously interpreting Davis v. Monroe County Board of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999), as requiring plaintiffs to show that their school’s deliberate indifference caused them to suffer further harassment – in other words, that a school cannot be liable in damages if a student is not raped or otherwise harassed again as a result of the institution’s deliberate indifference. Essentially, the school argues for a “one free rape” rule, twisting the clear text of key Supreme Court precedent. The amicus brief explains that Davis requires a showing that a school’s deliberate indifference either subjects a student to further harassment or makes a student “vulnerable or liable” to it, and this requirement is met when plaintiffs show, as they did here, that the school’s lack of response made them afraid to go to classes or activities or even stay in school.
2017
Top