Amicus curiae

Senator Bill Cassidy has placed on hold four of President Trump's nominees for federal labor-related positions until this investigation is completed.

A coalition of 17 states, five Republican senators, and dozens of organizations and individuals have filed 12 Friends of the Court amicus briefs this week, urging the Ninth U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a ruling blocking California's school gender identity policies.

Supreme Court ruled that political parties should be offered the same lowest TV ad rates as political candidates, seen as a victory for the Republican Party.

It's very pernicious to me.

And that's why we're proud to join Amicus Briefs in support of those firms.

And likewise, in support of Harvard University, an institution that FIRE has had problems with for 25 years.

I was there writing an Amicus Brief about the attacks from this administration and Harvard.

But we need not explore that point further here because, for the reasons we have explained, MVRA restitution is criminal punishment.

Amicus relies heavily on Smith v. Doe.

There, this court considered a law requiring a defendant convicted of certain crimes to register as a sex offender.

The court held that the registration mandate was civil.

By contrast, to reiterate what we said above, MVRA restitution is labeled as a penalty, is codified in the criminal code, is predicated on a criminal conviction, is imposed against a criminal defendant, is sometimes imposed in lieu of other penalties, is ordered at sentencing where the United States is the adverse party, and can result in resentencing when the defendant refuses to pay.

So Smith v. Doe does not control.

It is true, as Amicus thoroughly explains, that the MVRA seeks to compensate crime victims, a non-punitive goal.

Several provisions of the MVRA reflect that objective, such as a provision requiring that restitution amounts be based on a victim's loss.

We are diving into a new case and a new topic today that I don't think we've discussed, or at least we haven't discussed in depth in quite a while.

But now we need to because we've gone and filed an amicus brief in a case called Rogoff v. Trump in the Western District of Washington.

And here to discuss the case with us is the author of that amicus brief, our colleague, Senior Litigation Counsel Jacob Hubert.

Jacob, what is going on in the Western District of Washington that doesn't involve crab fishing?

Well, back in 2023, Attorney General Bondi appointed a temporary U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, someone named Charles Floyd.

Ideally, he would be confirmed for that position.

And after Trump fired Rogoff, Rogoff filed a lawsuit saying that he was entitled to be in that office and asking for a preliminary injunction to put him in that office until the Senate confirmed somebody for that position.

And our amicus brief supports the president's position.

I, I haven't even read all the amicus briefs, but there are also some interesting crossovers.

You know, the Jonathan Adler, relatively conservative libertarian, uh, scholar and, uh, author of The Vital Conspiracy, had a solo amicus brief on the side of the plaintiffs, which is not maybe where people would normally imagine his political instincts, but just saying, you know, this is what Congress can preempt this if it wants to.

This is what the Commerce Clause is for.

So we'll see.