No. 18-280

In The Supreme Court of the United States
_________
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, ET AL.
Respondents.
_________
On Writ of Certiorari to
the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
_________
BRIEF OF SENATORS SHELDON
WHITEHOUSE, MAZIE HIRONO, RICHARD
BLUMENTHAL, RICHARD DURBIN, AND
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND AS AMICI CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
_________
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Counsel of Record
Hart Senate Office Bldg., Rm. 530
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-2921
counsel@whitehouse.senate.gov

 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………. ii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................. 1
ARGUMENT ............................................................ 3
I. The Court Should Reject
Petitioners’ Efforts To ReEnlist It In A Political
“Project.” .................................................... 3
II. Ignoring Neutral
Justiciability Principles To
Reach Desired Outcomes
Damages This Court’s
Legitimacy. ................................................ 9
CONCLUSION ....................................................... 18

 ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)

Cases
Abood v. Detroit Board of Educ., 431 U.S. 209
(1977)...................................................................... 14
Bullock v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 4:18-cv00103-BMM, 2019 WL 3423485 (D. Mont. July
30, 2019) ...................................................................8
Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558
U.S. 310 (2010)................................................. 12, 14
Entergy v. Riverkeeper, 556 U.S. 208 (2009) ............ 12
Epic Sys. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) ................ 12
Fed. Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life,
551 U.S. 449 (2007)................................................ 14
Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019) ..... 13
Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014) ...................... 14
Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps.,
138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018)...................................... 12, 14
Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, 567 U.S. 298
(2012)...................................................................... 14
League of Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S.
399 (2006) ............................................................... 12
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
..................................................................................5
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) .. 2, 11, 17
Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) .......... 12

 iii

Ricci v. Destefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) .................... 12
Shelby Cty. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) .............. 12

Other Authorities
Adam Liptak, With Subtle Signals, Supreme
Court Justices Request the Cases They Want to
Hear, N.Y. Times (July 6, 2015) ............................ 14
Andrew Perez, Conservative Legal Interests
Funneled $2.7 Million to NRA, Freedom
Partners Around Gorsuch Fight, MapLight
(Jan. 7, 2019)............................................................7
Anna Massoglia & Andrew Perez, Secretive
Conservative Legal Group Funded by $17
Million Mystery Donor Before Kavanaugh
Fight, OpenSecrets (May 17, 2019) ....................... 17
Barry Friedman, The Wages of Stealth
Overruling (with Particular Attention to
Miranda v. Arizona), 99 Geo. L.J. 1 (2010) ........... 13
Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial
Process (Yale Univ. Press 1921) ........................ 2, 11
Center for Responsive Politics, Montana Senate
Race: Outside Spending, Open Secrets,

 iv

https://www.opensecrets.org/races/outsidespending?cycle=2018&id=MTS1 .............................5
Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of
Hon. Clarence Thomas to Be an Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States: Hearing Before S. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 102d Cong. (1991) ................................ 12
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass’n, No. 1357095 (9th Cir. July 1, 2014), ECF No. 18-1 ........ 15
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass’n, No. 8:13cv-676-JLS-CW (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2013), ECF
No. 81 ..................................................................... 15
Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, Oral Arg. Tr. at
37:18-38:11 (Oct. 3, 2017) ...................................... 18
John G. Roberts, Jr., Article III Limits on
Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L.J. 1219 (1993) . 2, 11
Ken
Klukowski,
Commentary:
Second
Amendment Returns to Supreme Court in New
York State Rifle, The Federalist Society (Mar.
12, 2019) ............................................................... 5, 6
Laila Robbins, Conservatives Bankrolled and
Dominated Kavanaugh Confirmation Media
Campaign, The Hill (Oct. 19, 2018) ........................4

 v

Letter from Scott S. Harris, Clerk of the
Supreme Court of the United States, to Sen.
Sheldon Whitehouse (Feb. 27, 2019) (on file
with Sen. Whitehouse).............................................8
Letter from the Justices of the Supreme Court to
George Washington (Aug. 8, 1793) ....................... 10
Margaret Sessa-Hawkins & Andrew Perez, Dark
Money Group Received Massive Donation in
Fight Against Obama’s Supreme Court
Nominee, MapLight (Oct. 24, 2017) ...................... 17
Mary Bottari, Behind Janus: Documents Reveal
Decade-Long Plot to Kill Public-Sector Unions,
In These Times (Feb. 22, 2019) ............................. 16
Nolan D. McCaskill, Trump Releases Updated
Short List of Potential Supreme Court
Nominees, Politico (Nov. 11, 2017) ..........................7
Press Release, NRA-ILA, NRA Launches SevenFigure Ad Campaign in Indiana (Oct. 10,
2018) .........................................................................5
Press Release, NRA-ILA, NRA-ILA Launches
Major
Advertising
Campaign
Urging
Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh (Aug.
7, 2018) .....................................................................5
Quinnipiac Poll (May 22 2019) ......................... 3, 4, 17

 vi

Richard L. Hasen, Anticipatory Overrulings,
Invitations, Time Bombs, and Inadvertence:
How Supreme Court Justices Move the Law, 61
Emory L.J. 779 (2012) ........................................... 14
Robert O’Harrow & Shawn Boburg, A
Conservative Activist’s Behind-the-Scenes
Campaign to Remake the Nation’s Courts,
Wash. Post (May 21, 2019) ......................................7
Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States
(2017)........................................................................3
Sheldon Whitehouse, A Right-Wing Rout: What
the “Roberts Five” Decisions Tell Us About the
Integrity of Today’s Supreme Court, American
Constitution Society (Apr. 24, 2019) ............... 12, 13
The Federalist No. 78 (C. Rossiter ed. 2003) (A.
Hamilton) ........................................................... 1, 10
Timothy L. Foden, The Battle for Public Interest
Law: Exploring the Orwellian Nature of the
Freedom Based Public Interest Movement, 4
Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 210 (2005) ............................. 15
TV Commercial from the NRA Institute for
Legislative Action, Confirm Brett Kavanaugh
(last airing Aug. 19, 2018) .......................................4

 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1
Amici curiae are U.S. Senators Sheldon
Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii,
Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Richard Durbin
of Illinois, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Amici
share with the Court a strong interest in the
preservation of the separation of powers that sustains
our constitutional form of government. This brief
centers on the practical, political, and historical
context of this case.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The judiciary was not intended to settle
hypothetical disagreements. The Framers designed
Article III courts to adjudicate actual controversies
brought by plaintiffs who suffer real-world harm.
This reflects the Framers’ intent that the judiciary
“may truly be said to have neither force nor will but
merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, 464 (C.
Rossiter ed. 2003) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization
altered).

The parties have consented to the filing of this brief.
Under Rule 37.6 of the Rules of this Court, amici state that
no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in
part, and no counsel or party made a monetary
contribution intended to fund the preparation or
submission of this brief. No person other than amici or
their counsel made a monetary contribution to its
preparation or submission.
1

 2
The rationale for this long-settled principle is
simple: “this Court is not a legislature.” Obergefell v.
Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2611 (2015) (Roberts, C.J.,
dissenting). “It can be tempting for judges to confuse
[their] own preferences with the requirements of the
law,” id. at 2612, and to legislate political outcomes
from the bench. But a judge “is not a knight-errant,
roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty
or of goodness.” Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of
the Judicial Process 141 (Yale Univ. Press 1921).
Accordingly, justiciability doctrines, such as standing
and mootness, have evolved to serve as an “apolitical
limitation on judicial power,” confining the courts to
their constitutionally prescribed lane.
John G.
Roberts, Jr., Article III Limits on Statutory Standing,
42 Duke L.J. 1219, 1230 (1993). In short, courts do
not undertake political “projects.” Or at least they
should not.
Yet this is precisely—and explicitly—what
petitioners ask the Court to do in this case, in the
wake of a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to
shape this Court’s composition, no less, and an
industrial-strength influence campaign aimed at this
Court. Indeed, petitioners and their allies have made
perfectly clear that they seek a partner in a “project”
to expand the Second Amendment and thwart gunsafety regulations. Particularly in an environment
where a growing majority of Americans believes this
Court is “motivated mainly by politics,” rather than

 3
by adherence to the law,2 the Court should resist
petitioners’ invitation.

ARGUMENT
I.

The Court Should Reject Petitioners’
Efforts To Re-Enlist It In A Political
“Project.”

Parties and lawyers seeking to shape the law
through affirmative litigation might once have been
reticent to openly promote their political agenda in
this Court. No longer.
Confident that a Court majority assures their
success, petitioners laid their cards on the table: “The
project this Court began in Heller and McDonald
cannot end with those precedents,” petitioners
submit. Pet’rs’ Reply at 2. Petitioners identify no
legal question on which the circuit courts of appeal
disagree. They do not suggest the court below “so far
departed from the accepted and usual course of
judicial proceedings” to require this Court to exercise
its supervisory power. Indeed, they do not suggest
this withdrawn municipal regulation presents any
“important question[s] of federal law that . . . should
be . . . settled by this Court.” Rules of the Supreme
Court of the United States, Rule 10 (2017). They

Quinnipiac
Poll
(May
22
2019),
https://poll.qu.edu/national/releasedetail?ReleaseID=2623 [hereinafter Quinnipiac Poll].
2

 4
simply want a majority’s help with their political
“project.”
To stem the growing public belief that its
decisions are “motivated mainly by politics,” the
Court should decline invitations like this to engage in
“projects.” See Quinnipiac Poll, supra note 2 (showing
fifty-five percent of Americans believe the Court is
“motivated mainly by politics”).
Petitioners’ effort did not emerge from a vacuum.
The lead petitioner’s parent organization, the
National Rifle Association (NRA), promoted the
confirmation (and perhaps selection) of nominees to
this Court who, it believed, would “break the tie” in
Second Amendment cases.3
During last year’s
confirmation proceedings, the NRA spent $1.2 million
on television advertisements declaring exactly that:
“Four liberal justices oppose your right to selfdefense,” the NRA claimed, “four justices support
your right to self-defense. President Trump chose
Brett Kavanaugh to break the tie. Your right to selfdefense depends on this vote.” Id.; see Laila Robbins,
Conservatives Bankrolled and Dominated Kavanaugh
Confirmation Media Campaign, The Hill (Oct. 19,
2018).

TV Commercial from the NRA Institute for
Legislative Action, Confirm Brett Kavanaugh (last airing
Aug.
19,
2018),
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/dB8Q/nrainstitute-for-legislative-action-confirm-brettkavanaugh?autoplay=1.
3

 5
NRA spokespersons were similarly blunt: “The
NRA strongly supports Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s
confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court because he
will protect our constitutional right to keep and bear
arms,” said Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s top lobbyist.
Press Release, NRA-ILA, NRA-ILA Launches Major
Advertising Campaign Urging Confirmation of Judge
Brett Kavanaugh (Aug. 7, 2018). “It’s critical that all
pro-Second Amendment voters urge their senators to
confirm Judge Kavanaugh.”
Once it secured victory in that confirmation
campaign, the NRA continued its “project” in Senate
races, stating in one campaign: “The Supreme Court
is divided. Liberal Justices oppose your rights. [This
Senator] voted against your gun rights by voting
against Brett Kavanaugh.” Press Release, NRA-ILA,
NRA Launches Seven-Figure Ad Campaign in
Indiana (Oct. 10, 2018).4
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy
Studies published an article this spring describing
what recent changes to the Court’s composition mean
for this very case. That article observed that this
Court had not accepted any Second Amendment cases
for briefing and argument since its decision in
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
Ken Klukowski, Commentary: Second Amendment

See also Center for Responsive Politics, Montana
Senate Race: Outside Spending, Open Secrets,
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/outsidespending?cycle=2018&id=MTS1.
4

 6
Returns to Supreme Court in New York State Rifle,
The Federalist Society (Mar. 12, 2019). “Some
pundits had speculated that Justice Kennedy had
been the reason that four Justices had not voted for
any Second Amendment cases since McDonald was
decided in 2010.” Id. And “[d]ictum in Justice
Antonin Scalia’s Heller opinion emphasizing that
Heller should not be read to cast doubt on certain
‘presumptively
lawful’
restrictions
on
firearms . . . looked to some like Justice Kennedy’s
price of admission to join the principal opinion.” Id.
But with Justice Kennedy retired, and after a
multimillion-dollar
campaign
asserting
his
replacement would “break the tie,” that calculation
changed. After “reject[ing] multiple certworthy cases
since 2010,” the article continued, the Court, “with
Justice Brett Kavanaugh now sitting in Justice
Kennedy’s seat[,] has suddenly granted review in this
case.” Id. That is “seen as evidence that this theory
regarding Kennedy is correct, that the logjam has
been cleared, and that the current case may be only
the first of several over the coming years.” Id.
(emphasis added).
This commentary is of particular note because it
was published by an organization that has such a
prominent role in the Republican Party’s efforts to
shape the federal judiciary in favor of donor interests.
The Federalist Society’s Executive Vice President,
Leonard Leo, has been linked to a million-dollar
contribution to the NRA’s lobbying arm, and to a $250
million network largely funded by anonymous donors
to promote right-wing causes and judicial nominees.

 7
See Robert O’Harrow & Shawn Boburg, A
Conservative Activist’s Behind-the-Scenes Campaign
to Remake the Nation’s Courts, Wash. Post (May 21,
2019). The Society counts over eighty-six percent of
Trump administration nominees to the circuit courts
of appeal and to this Court as active members. It is
not yet clear who the powerful funders are behind
Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society judicial
selection effort, nor what took place as the Federalist
Society
was
“insourced”
into
the
Trump
administration’s judicial selection process.5
But
massive political spending and secrecy are rarely a
salubrious combination.6

Federalist Society member and former White House
Counsel Donald McGahn told the group: “Our opponents
of judicial nominees frequently claim the president has
outsourced his selection of judges. That is completely
false. I’ve been a member of the Federalist Society since
law school—still am. So, frankly, it seems like it’s been
insourced.” Nolan D. McCaskill, Trump Releases Updated
Short List of Potential Supreme Court Nominees, Politico
(Nov. 11, 2017).
5

Thanks to delays in the required financial
disclosures, the full extent of the Federalist
Society/Leonard Leo/NRA influence and political spending
network on recent appointments and confirmations is not
yet fully known. See, e.g., Andrew Perez, Conservative
Legal Interests Funneled $2.7 Million to NRA, Freedom
Partners Around Gorsuch Fight, MapLight (Jan. 7, 2019)
6

 8
The influence effort directed at this Court has
been industrialized. In this particular “project” to
rewrite and expand the Second Amendment,
petitioners are flanked by an army of nearly sixty
amici. As usual, the true identities and funding
sources of most of these amici are impossible to
ascertain. Amicus groups claim status as “socialwelfare” organizations to keep their donor lists
private,7 and this Court’s Rule 37.6 is ineffective at
adding any meaningful transparency.8 Were there
such transparency, this amicus army would likely be
revealed as more akin to marionettes controlled by a
puppetmaster than to a groundswell of support
rallying to a cause. There are some early signals:


At least 8 amici purport to represent gun
organizations which, like petitioner, are
affiliates of the NRA.

(documenting through tax records political spending
behind the Justice Gorsuch nomination).
See Bullock v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 4:18-cv00103-BMM, 2019 WL 3423485 (D. Mont. July 30, 2019)
(invalidating a 2018 Internal Revenue Service rule that
permitted 501(c)(4) “social-welfare” organizations to keep
their donor lists private).
7

In purportedly striking a “balance” between
transparency interests and organizations’ associational
rights, Rule 37.6 reveals an unusual understanding of the
word “balance.” Letter from Scott S. Harris, Clerk of the
Supreme Court of the United States, to Sen. Sheldon
Whitehouse (Feb. 27, 2019) (on file with Sen. Whitehouse).
8

 9




At least 32 amici filing briefs in support of
petitioners do not disclose their organizational
donors, which prevents this Court, other
parties, and the public from knowing whether
parties in this case have funded amici’s effort.
At least 6 amici report receiving funding from
foundations and other often anonymously
funded sources connected to Leonard Leo’s
network that regularly fund ideological
litigants and amici before this Court.

Out in the real world, Americans are murdered
each day with firearms in classrooms or movie
theaters or churches or city streets, and a generation
of preschoolers is being trained in active-shooter
survival drills. In the cloistered confines of this
Court, and notwithstanding the public imperatives of
these massacres, the NRA and its allies brashly
presume, in word and deed, that they have a friendly
audience for their “project.”
II.

Ignoring
Neutral
Justiciability
Principles To Reach Desired Outcomes
Damages This Court’s Legitimacy.

Petitioners ask this Court to reach the merits
despite intervening changes in state and municipal
law that give them all the relief they supposedly seek
here. Most litigants would celebrate such victory.
But petitioners soldier on, tellingly complaining that
New York City’s new regulation would “frustrate this
Court’s review” of their Second Amendment
arguments. Pet’rs’ Letter at 3 (Apr. 19, 2019). As
respondents correctly note, “none of this hand-waving

 10
alters the basic fact that this case should be dismissed
for lack of any continuing case or controversy.”
Suggestion of Mootness 13. Petitioners’ insistence to
the contrary betrays their true motive: the “project.”
The judiciary was not intended to settle
hypothetical disagreements. Rather, the Framers
designed Article III courts to adjudicate actual cases
and controversies brought by plaintiffs who suffer a
real-world harm.
As the first Chief Justice
recognized, this limitation was inherent in the
Constitution’s separation of powers:
The lines of Separation drawn by the
Constitution
between
the
three
Departments of Government, their being
in certain Respects checks on each other,
and our being judges of a court in the last
Resort, are Considerations which afford
strong arguments against the Propriety
of our extrajudicially deciding the
questions alluded to [by President
Washington’s request for an advisory
opinion].
Letter from the Justices of the Supreme Court to
George Washington (Aug. 8, 1793).
Before Ratification, Hamilton and the Federalists
relied on these constraints to alleviate AntiFederalist fears of an all-powerful judiciary. Limiting
the judiciary to real cases that arose properly through
litigation was one means to assure that the “general
liberty of the People can never be endangered,”
Hamilton argued. The Federalist No. 78, 464 (C.

 11
Rossiter ed. 2003) (A. Hamilton). This limitation
allowed supporters of this new model of government
to assure the public that the judiciary “may truly be
said to have neither force nor will but merely
judgment.” Id. (capitalization altered).
These principles have guided the judiciary into
the modern era. Cardozo observed that a judge “is not
a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own
ideal of beauty or of goodness.” Benjamin N. Cardozo,
The Nature of the Judicial Process 141 (1921). And
the Chief Justice recently echoed that sentiment,
cautioning that “[t]his Court is not a legislature.”
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2611 (2015)
(Roberts, C.J., dissenting). “It can be tempting for
judges to confuse [their] own preferences with the
requirements of the law,” id. at 2612, to legislate from
the bench. To stave off that temptation, justiciability
doctrines like standing and mootness function as an
“apolitical limitation on judicial power,” ensuring that
courts do not exceed their constitutionally prescribed
powers. John G. Jr. Roberts, Article III Limits on
Statutory Standing, 42 Duke L.J. 1219, 1230 (1993).
In short, courts do not undertake political “projects.”
Recent patterns raise legitimate questions about
whether these limits remain. From October Term
2005 through October Term 2017, this Court issued
78 5-4 (or 5-3) opinions in which justices appointed by
Republican presidents provided all five votes in the
majority. In 73 of these 5-4 decisions, the cases
concerned interests important to the big funders,
corporate influencers, and political base of the
Republican Party. And in each of these 73 cases,

 12
those partisan interests prevailed. See Sheldon
Whitehouse, A Right-Wing Rout: What the “Roberts
Five” Decisions Tell Us About the Integrity of Today’s
Supreme Court, American Constitution Society (Apr.
24, 2019).
With bare partisan majorities, the Court has
influenced sensitive areas like voting rights, partisan
gerrymandering, dark money, union power,
regulation of pollution, corporate liability, and access
to federal court, particularly regarding civil rights
and discrimination in the workplace.9 Every single
time, the corporate and Republican political interests
prevailed.
The pattern of outcomes is striking; and so is the
frequency with which these 5-4 majorities
disregarded “conservative” judicial principles like
judicial restraint, originalism, stare decisis, and even
federalism.
See Whitehouse, supra at 12, at
Appendix. Compare, e.g., Confirmation Hearing on
the Nomination of Hon. Clarence Thomas to Be an
See, e.g., Shelby Cty. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)
(voting rights); League of Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548
U.S. 399 (2006) (gerrymandering); Citizens United v. Fed.
Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (dark money); Janus
v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., 138 S. Ct. 2448
(2018) (union power); Entergy v. Riverkeeper, 556 U.S. 208
(2009) (regulation of pollution); Rent-A-Center v. Jackson,
561 U.S. 63 (2010) (corporate liability and access to courts);
Ricci v. Destefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) (workplace
discrimination); Epic Sys. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018)
(corporate liability and access to courts).
9

 13
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States: Hearing Before S. Comm. on the Judiciary,
102d Cong. (1991) (“[Y]ou cannot simply, because you
have the votes, begin to change rules, to change
precedent.”), with Gamble v. United States, 139 S. Ct.
1960 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“When faced
with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is
simple: We should not follow it.”). In fact, in 55
percent of the 73 cases, the 5-4 majority disregarded
principles of stare decisis, judicial restraint,
originalism, textualism, or limitations on appellate
fact-finding.
See Whitehouse, supra at 12, at
Appendix.
As scholars, journalists, and commentators have
observed, this Court has employed a number of
methods to circumvent justiciability limits in
decisions that moved the law. Professor Barry
Friedman, for example, has described “stealth
overruling,” when the Court, without explicitly
overruling an existing precedent, “fail[s] to extend a
precedent to the conclusion mandated by its
rationale,” or “reduces precedent to nothing.”10
Others have documented members of this Court
affirmatively inviting challenges to long-established

Barry Friedman, The Wages of Stealth Overruling
(with Particular Attention to Miranda v. Arizona), 99 Geo.
L.J. 1, 3 (2010) (describing how the Court has significantly
reduced the precedential force of Miranda without
incurring public scrutiny and criticism).
10

 14
precedent,11 or leaving “time bombs” in opinions by
including “subtle dicta or analysis not necessary to
decide [a case] with an eye toward influencing how the
Court will decide a future case,” Hasen, supra note 11,
at 781. Obviously, the Court is not standing back in
dispassionate form and “calling balls and strikes”
when it is laying the groundwork for future policy
See, e.g., Adam Liptak, With Subtle Signals,
Supreme Court Justices Request the Cases They Want to
Hear, N.Y. Times (July 6, 2015) (describing Justice Alito’s
dicta, in Knox v. SEIU, 567 U.S. 298 (2012), and Harris v.
Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), inviting the eventual
challenge to overturn Abood v. Detroit Board of Education,
431 U.S. 209 (1977)—another “project” the Court
completed last year in Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S. Ct. 2448
(2018), which, in turn, contains additional invitations);
Richard L. Hasen, Anticipatory Overrulings, Invitations,
Time Bombs, and Inadvertence: How Supreme Court
Justices Move the Law, 61 Emory L.J. 779, 786 (2012)
(Hasen describes, among others, an invitation by Justice
Alito “to reconsider the holding in McConnell v. Federal
Election Comm’n, that § 203 [of the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act of 2002] is facially constitutional,” Fed.
Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449,
482-83 (2007) (Alito, J., concurring). Sure enough, the
Court reversed that holding three years later, in Citizens
United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), after changing the
question p, resented to do so. As Justice Stevens observed,
“five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the
case before [them], so they changed the case to give
themselves an opportunity to change the law,” id. at 398
(Stevens, J., dissenting). Balls and strikes, indeed.).
11

 15
changes or soliciting opportunities to change policy.
That should be unacceptable in the context of
separated powers.
The Court and the country have witnessed an
accompanying
explosion
of
strategic
“faux”
litigation—cases fabricated to bring issues before the
Court when litigants presume it will give them policy
victories. For example, we have seen flocks of
“freedom-based public interest law” organizations
that exist only to change public policy through
litigation, and which often do not disclose their
funders.12 We have seen behavioral signals, like
litigants who rush to lose cases in lower courts “as
quickly as practicable and without argument, so that
[they] can expeditiously take their claims to the
Supreme Court” (ordinarily, in litigation, litigants
seek to win).13 Almost invariably, and as we have

See Timothy L. Foden, The Battle for Public Interest
Law: Exploring the Orwellian Nature of the Freedom Based
Public Interest Movement, 4 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 210, 23233 (2005).
12

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion, Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings, and Memorandum of Points & Authorities
in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass’n, No. 8:13-cv-676JLS-CW (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2013), ECF No. 81; Brief of
Appellants, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass’n, No.
13-57095 (9th Cir. July 1, 2014), ECF No. 18-1, at 3 (“It is
. . . Appellants’ intention to pursue their claims before the
Supreme Court. Because this Court’s authority to grant
13

 16
seen in this case, such plaintiffs are accompanied by
throngs of professional amici, whose common funding
sources and connections to the organizations behind
the supposed party-in-interest are obscured by
ineffective disclosure rules. See Mary Bottari, Behind
Janus: Documents Reveal Decade-Long Plot to Kill
Public-Sector Unions, In These Times (Feb. 22, 2019)
(detailing through exhaustive investigative reporting
how DonorsTrust, Donors Capital Fund, and the
Bradley Foundation collectively bankrolled at least 15
amicus briefs in Janus and funded both organizations
representing the plaintiff—information never
disclosed in the litigation).
These systematic, industrialized efforts often
seek to end-run standing, case-or-controversy, and
other separation-of-powers guardrails; often obscure
the real party-in-interest; and align with a larger and
even more ominous pattern—a pattern of persistent
efforts by large anonymous forces to influence the
Court. The anonymous funding of the Federalist
Society’s “insourced” judicial selection effort; the
anonymous funding of the Judicial Crisis Network’s
judicial confirmation campaigns (two $17+ million
that relief is foreclosed by binding precedent, Appellants
respectfully request that the Court affirm the district
court’s entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of
Appellees (public-teachers unions and public-school
superintendents) as quickly as practicable and without
argument, so that Appellants can expeditiously take their
claims to the Supreme Court.”).

 17
dollar donations, maybe by the same donor, with
unknown business before the Court);14 the
anonymous funding of the strategic litigation shops
that bring so many cases behind “plaintiffs of
convenience”; the anonymous funding of the amicus
armada, as many as fifteen at a clip—none of it is
healthy, and it all bodes very poorly for the Court if it
turns out that these anonymous donor interests are
also the beneficiaries of the 73-decision run of 5-4
victories we described, supra at 12.
This backdrop no doubt encourages petitioners’
brazen confidence that this Court will be a partner in
their “project.”
Today, fifty-five percent of Americans believe the
Supreme Court is “mainly motivated by politics” (up
five percent from last year); fifty-nine percent believe
the Court is “too influenced by politics”; and a
majority now believes the “Supreme Court should be
restructured in order to reduce the influence of
politics.” Quinnipiac Poll, supra note 2. To have the
public believe that the Court’s pattern of outcomes is
the stuff of chance (or “the requirements of the law,”
Obergefell, 135 S. Ct. at 2612 (Roberts, C.J.,
See Anna Massoglia & Andrew Perez, Secretive
Conservative Legal Group Funded by $17 Million Mystery
Donor Before Kavanaugh Fight, OpenSecrets (May 17,
2019); Margaret Sessa-Hawkins & Andrew Perez, Dark
Money Group Received Massive Donation in Fight Against
Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee, MapLight (Oct. 24,
2017) (reporting a “single $17.9 million contribution from
a mystery donor”).
14

 18
dissenting)) is to treat the “intelligent man on the
street,” Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, Oral Arg. Tr. at
37:18-38:11 (Oct. 3, 2017), as a fool.
The Supreme Court is not well. And the people
know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the
public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce
the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent
issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to
heal.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should
vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss.
Respectfully submitted,
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Counsel of Record
Hart Senate Office Bldg., Rm. 530
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-2921
counsel@whitehouse.senate.gov
August 12, 2019