A U.S. judicial panel has struck down a crucial element of a proposed rule that sought to increase transparency regarding financial backers of amicus curiae briefs. The decision, made by a 5-4 vote, followed intense opposition from major trade associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The proposal, initially endorsed by judicial policymakers, would have required non-profits, charities, and trade groups submitting amicus briefs to disclose when a party in a case contributed at least 25% of their annual revenue. Critics of the rule argued it would infringe on the First Amendment right to free association, while supporters saw it as a way to enhance public trust in the courts.
The panel, meeting in Atlanta, did approve a separate measure that would require organizations to name donors who earmarked funds specifically for an amicus brief—provided they had been a member for less than 12 months. This portion of the proposal will now move forward for final consideration.
Opposition to the revenue-based disclosure rule was particularly strong among conservative-leaning groups like the Heritage Foundation, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice under President Trump. Federal Judge Carl Nichols downplayed concerns about undisclosed funding, stating that the content of an amicus brief matters more than its source.
The push for stricter financial transparency in court filings dates back to 2019 when Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation targeting special interest influence in legal cases. Despite multiple attempts, these legislative efforts have failed to gain traction.
Mark Freeman, representing the U.S. Department of Justice, warned that excessive disclosure rules could discourage organizations from filing amicus briefs altogether. “We’re at risk of going overboard,” he cautioned.
For now, the judiciary has opted to keep its approach more limited, shelving the more controversial provisions of the proposed rule.
