Agenda Packets - 1987/06/01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Amicus briefs are filed for a number of reasons. One is to present an arqument or point of view that differs somewhat from the party's presentation. The party generally has a single goal in mind: to win the rase. The amicus may view the case from a broader or different perspective. For example, in Fisher v. City of. Berkeley, the city's principal concern was to defend its rent control ordinance from preemption under the federal antitrust laws. The legal Center's amicus brief argued that all unilateral rate regulation was valid becarise it did not involve the concerted action prohibited by the antitrust laws. In Welch v. Texas Department of Iliglways, the stare argued that it was not liable under the Jones Act, a federal statute requlatinq the employers of seamen, because that Act did not apply to the states. The Legal Center's amicus brief arqued that the state was not liable in that case because it was brought in federal court and the Eleventh Amendment barred federal courts from awarding damarles aqainst ti:e state. Another reason is to bring to the attention of the Court facts or arguments which, although not essential to the decision of a particular case, may persuade the Court to frame its opinion in a way that will be helpful in later cases. For example, in llillsborough County v. Automated Medical laboratories, the Legal Center arqued that county ordtnanc- s e(lulat n— he collection of blood plasma were not preempted because federal agency requla- tions should never be construed to preempt state or local requla- tion that is not in conflict with federal law unless the federal agency has expressed its intent to preempt: the regulation in question. This theory was instrumental not only in winning the particular case, hilt it has already been important. to victories in other cases involving preemption by a federal agency, including telephone rate regulation and environmental requlation of mining on federal land. California Federal Savin s 6 Loan v. Guerra involved a preemption challenge unre�r ri 1I, t e ei deral employment discrimination statute, to a California sta- tute that: required employers to allow unpaid maternity disability leave. The Legal Center arqued not only that the challenged sta- tute was valid under a techniral reading of Title VII, but also that it was valid because preemption under Title VII should never be found if the employer could comply with both federal and state law. The theory, which the. Court accepted, will be important not only in other. Title V11 preemptinn cases but in other areas where state and local governments share concurrent requlatory authority with the federal government. Yet another reason is to emphasize the importance of the issue before the Court by affirmatively indicating the interest of a larqe or representative group; the Legal Center speaks for all or some of the seven major orrlanizatinns of general purpose state and local government elected and appointed officials.