How to Win Friends and Influence Government Contracts Law:1
Improving the Use of Amicus Briefs at the Federal Circuit
Jayna Marie Rust*
257 14th St. SE, Unit A
Washington, DC 20003
* Jayna Marie Rust ([email protected]) is a J.D. candidate at The George Washington University Law School and a Notes Editor for the Public Contract Law Journal. She wishes to thank the Honorable Jeri K. Somers, Timothy Sullivan, and Collin D. Swan for taking the time to read previous drafts and provide thoughtful advice.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction...............................................1
II. Brief Overview of the Role of Amicus Briefs in Appellate
Litigation.....................................................4
1 See Huffman, supra note 22, at 26.
A. Which Amicus Briefs are Valuable.........................5
1. Who the Helpful Amici Are...............................7
2. Particular Areas Where Amicus Briefs Provide the Most
Assistance..................................................9
B. Amicus Briefs that Courts do not Consider to be Helpful. 11
III. Brief Overview of the Federal Circuit’s Approach to Amicus
Briefs12
A. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 and the Federal
Circuit’s Local Rule.........................................13
B. The Federal Circuit’s Commentary on Amicus Briefs.......15
IV. Forgetting What the Other Wants: Why the Use of Amicus
Briefs Could Be Better......................................1817
A. The Federal Circuit Sends Mixed Signals on Its Approach to
Amicus Briefs, Ultimately Detering Amici Participation.....1918
1. Federal Circuit Local Rule 29 has not Been Utilized to
Appeal to the Government Contracts Community...............19
2. Limited Responses to Amicus Submissions Creates Little to
No Incentive for the Government Contracts Community to File
Future Amicus Briefs.....................................2423
B. Courts Generally do not Read Briefs with the Types of
Arguments That Government Contracts Amici Have Presented to the
Federal Circuit..............................................26
V. Winning to “Our” Way of Thinking: Trying to See Things from
the Other’s Point of View.....................................29
A. The Federal Circuit Should Address Briefs that Amici File
and Use Federal Circuit Local Rule 29 to Ask for More Policy
Related Briefs...............................................31
B. The Government Contracts Community Must Provide Briefs
that Address what the Court Wants to Hear, Not Just What the
Amicus Wants to Say........................................3332
VI. Conclusion................................................34
I. Introduction
When addressing a government contracts group in December
2009, then Chief Judge Paul Michel, then Chief Judge of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”),
noted “that the Federal Circuit does not have the level of amici
participation in the Government contracts area that it has in the
patent and other areas within its jurisdiction.”2 Chief Judge
Michel added that[Nevertheless,] “A[a]mici participation would
help the Federal Circuit understand the ‘downstream,’ or real-
world, effects of its prior and/or potential decisions in the
Government contracts arena.”3
As the former chief judge’s comments point out, government
contracts is but one area of jurisdiction for the Federal
Circuit. Indeed, the Article III court currently has nationwide
appellate jurisdiction over international trade, government
contracts, patents, trademarks, federal personnel, veterans’
benefits, public safety officers’ benefits claims, and certain
money claims against the Government.4 Disregarding the fact that
there is a smaller number of government contracts appeals brought
2 See Paul M. Collins, Jr. & Wendy L. Martinek, Who Participates as Amici Curiae in the U.S. Courts of Appeals?, 94 JUDICATURE 128, 128 (2010) (explaining that there is limited information on amicus curiae at the courts of appeals).3 See Andrew Frey, Amici Curiae: Friends of the Court or Nuisances?, 33 No. 1 LITIG. , Fall 2006, at ATION 5, 6 (2006).4 See, e.g., Simard, supra note 1312, at 697 (“Amicus curiae briefs offered by governmental entities were favored at all levels of the federal bench.”).
1
to the Federal Circuit compared to some of its other areas of
jurisdiction,5 according to the former chief judge, the
government contracts community, according to the former chief
judge, may be lagging behind the Federal Circuit’s other legal
communities in terms of submitting amicus briefs.6
Chief Judge Michel made this implicit call to government
contracts amici nearly three years ago, yet the government
contracts community has not responded with a flood of amicus
filings.7 Such a lack of response begs the question: why not?
This Notearticle will suggest that there is a variety of
practical reasons. It will then argue that if the Federal
Circuit and the government contracts community make some
adjustments in their approaches to amicus briefs, the adjustments
could help these two groups serve not only eachthe other’s
interests but their own interests as well.
This Notearticle begins with a brief overview of amicus
briefs in appellate litigation. This overview will also discuss
which amicus briefs appellate judges find to be particularly
useful. The Notearticle will then proceed to address how the
Federal Circuit’s stated approach to receiving and reviewing
amicus briefs compares to the other circuit courts.
5 ISee id. More than 96% of circuit-court judges who responded to an academic survey stated that government amicus briefs are at least moderately helpful if not very helpful. Id.6 See Iid.7 Id.
2
After setting forth the background, this Notearticle will
analyze the Federal Circuit’s approach to government contracts
amicus briefs and the briefs that have been previously submitted.
It will then set forth a two-fold argument.
First, the Federal Circuit should call for amicus briefs in
government contracts cases where any issue will be decided
without reliance on binding precedent. The Federal Circuit is
the only circuit court with a mechanism that specifically
provides a method for reaching out to amici,8 and it should fully
use it in government contracts cases. Furthermore, when amici
file briefs, Federal Circuitthe panels should signalizeprovide
some signals that theits judges considered the amici’s arguments.
Second, this Notearticle will proposeargue that the
government contracts community must provide arguments that the
Federal Circuit wants to hear from its amici. Essentially,
amicus briefs should begin to focus on policy questions and
provide predictions on how a decision will impact the
marketplace.
II. Brief Overview of the Role of Amicus Briefs in Appellate
Litigation
Amici — or “friends of the court” — are third-parties who
have an interest in the outcome of a case and who may file briefs
8 Id. at 697-98.
3
that state a unique viewpoint.9 These amicus briefs can ensure a
court’s decision is sound. Indeed, “[c]ourts have an obvious
interest in improving their decision making, and they may have
come to embrace amicus submissions as helpful in that
endeavor.”10 While sitting on the Third Circuit, then-Judge
Samuel Alito summarized exactly why amicus briefs may be helpful:
“Even when a party is very well represented, an amicus may provide important assistance to the court. ‘“Some amicus briefs collect background or factual references that merit judicial notice. Some friends of the court are entities with particular expertise not possessed by any party to the case. Others argue points deemed too far-reaching for emphasis by a party intent on winning a particular case. Still others explain the impact a potential holding might have on an industry or other group.’”11
Acknowledging the potential benefits of amicus briefs, the
remainder of this PartSection will provide an overview of how
appellate judges view specific amicus briefs.
[A.] Which Amicus Briefs Aare Valuable
Although there have not been focused studies conducted on
the circuit courts’Federal Circuit’s use of amicus briefs,12
there are relevant studies concerning the views of judges and
justices on the Supreme Court and appellate courts in general.13
9 See Lynch, supra note 1514, at 46-47. Solicitor General amicus briefsThese are given greathigh consideration because of the perceived high level of research, reliability, and impartiality attributed to themthe briefs. Id. at 47.10 See id. at 49.11 See id.12 Frey, supra note 1817, at 6.13 See Lynch, supra note 1514, at 41.
4
Many judges and clerks agree that amicus briefs are helpful
when a party lacks quality representation.14 Specifically,
overNearly 870% of circuit -court judges have found that amici
curiae were valuable when a party is “not adequatelyinadequately
represented.”15 As a resultAt this point, the judges and clerks
resort tomay then resort to relying on amicus briefs to fill in
deficiencies.16
In some instances, however, a judge will not only rely on
amici but may also proactively seek assistance from them. A
study published in 2008 showed that 54.2% of circuit-court judges
saidy they request amicus participation when they “perceive a
need for additional information . . . .”17 Requesting amicus
briefsThis may occur when the judge perceives that the parties do
not have sufficient expertise in a particular area.18
14 Id. at 52. ; sSee also Simard, supra note 1312, at 698 (“As experts in particular fields of law, professors are able to offer an informed legal analysis of a pressing legal question from a relatively neutral perspective.”).15 See Lynch, supra note 1514, at 41. The areas of particular import note to these former clerks are tax, patent, trademark, and Employment Retirement Income Security Act. Id.16 See Simard, supra note 13, at 690 n.94. Legal arguments that present an argument missing from the parties’ briefs are, however, considered helpful. Id. at 690.See Simard, supra note 12, at 690.17 ISee id. But see Walbolt & Lang, supra note 3332, at 308 (“Judges generally will welcome briefs that present an important perspective or legal argument that otherwise might be overlooked by the main litigants . . . .”).18 See Walbolt & Lang, supra note 3332, at 308; Lynch, supra note 1514, at 43, 45; Simard, supra note 1312, at 694-95.
5
Regardless of whether a judge has received an amicus brief
onf the amici’s own accord or whether the judge has sought the
brief, there are some briefs that courts consider more useful
than others. The following subsectionsis Part will provide an
overview of those types of briefs.
1. Who the Helpful Amici Are
Judges do not treat all “friends of the court” equally.
TRather, there appears to be two highly valuable amici that are
applicable to government contracts appeals at the Federal
Circuit. First, it is clear that government agencies’ amicus
briefs tend to carry the most weight in federal appellate
courts.19 In fact, judges on the federal courts of appeals
“ranked the g[G]overnment as the most helpful amicus curiae.”20
The reasons for favoring government amicus briefs are
numerous. Government briefs may provide expertise in helping
courts determine long-range impacts of a specific decision. 21
Considering other branches’ views also helps courts bring
legitimacy to an opinion.22 Additionally,nd encouraging amicus
participation can facilitate later enforcement of a decision.23
19 Walbolt & Lang, supra note 3332, at 308.20 Id. at 277.21 Simard, supra note 1312, at 694-95.22 See , e.g., Huffman, supra note 22, at 26 (explaining that former Chief Judge Michel has requested amicus briefs that look at practical aspects in the marketplace).23 See S. Lloyd Smith, An Interview with Chief Judge Randall R. Rader, LANDSLIDE, Mar.ch-/Apr. 2011, at 5, 6-7. Although Chief Judge Rader was addressing how amicus briefs may be useful in patent cases, he did not appear to limit his thoughts to those
6
Even within the sub-section of government briefs, some are
more favored than others. For instance, at the Supreme Court,
amicus briefs from the Solicitor General may be given more
consideration than those of all other advocates, —including the
actual parties to the case.24 Briefs from government agencies
are not as favored as those from the Solicitor General, but they
are heeded some deference. 25 Amicus briefs from Congress are not
considered quite as highly as those from other government
entities.26
Briefs by amici with particularized knowledge represent Tthe
second type of generally valuable amicus briefsi is one with
particularized knowledge. Indeed, appellate judges seem to
believe that amicus briefs are most helpful “when the amici have
particular expertise in an area of law that the parties
themselves lack.”27 The desire to infuse the decision-making
process with outside expertise reflects the awareness that judges
are often “generalists” who nonetheless must make decisions that
affecting technical and specialized areas of law.28 Such a lack
of specialization by these decision-makers may also explain why
types of cases. See id. at 6-7.24 Id. at 6.25 Id. at 7.26 See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.27 See FED . ERAL R . ULE OF APP . ELLATE P. PROCEDURE 29.id.28 Id.
7
88% of former clerks said they considered a brief authored by a
prominent academic more carefully than other briefs.29
2. Particular Areas Where Amicus Briefs Provide the
Most Assistance
In general, the level of value that an amicus brief provides
will depend on factors beyond the party filing the brief.
Instead, the value of the briefIt will further depend on the
difficulty of the subject matter and the type of argument that
the amicus makes.
First, difficulty of the subject matter and novelty to the
court are relevant to a brief’s value. The majority of former
Supreme Court law clerks “explained that amicus briefs were most
helpful to them in cases involving highly technical and
specialized areas of law, as well as complex statutory and
regulatory cases.”30
Second, judges most favorably review amicus briefs that do
not focus on legal arguments.31 A survey of state appellate
judges found that nearly all respondents thought amicus briefs
assisted them in understanding policy considerations.32 One
state appellate judge has said that amicus briefs “‘need to be
more explanatory of the problems created by a particular 29 See FED. CIR. R. 29. Federal Circuit Local Rule 29.30 5th CIR. R. Fifth Circuit Rule 29.1.31 9 th CIR. R. 29- 1 advisory committee’s noteNinth Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Rule 29-1.32 See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Circuit, List of 2012 Active Amicus Curiae Briefs (on file with the author).
8
resolution of a case and written to explain the ramifications of
a decision, rather than to advocate directly for that
position.’”33 He also described the need for amicus briefs to
highlight policy issues in a pending decision “that will have a
ripple effect . . . detail the “ripple effects” of a possible
decision.34 Former Chief Judge Michel’s call for briefs that
would assist the court in seeing the “downstream” impacts of
their decisions echoes the same sentiments as thise state
judge’s’ comments.35 In contemplating why federal judges also
prefer amicus briefs that provide policy arguments, amici must
bear in mind that judges are often chosen for their skills in
legal analysis.36 Thus, it is no doubt that “the most useful
information” in amicus briefs iswas “frequently factual and non-
legal in nature.”37
33 See id.34 Id. 35 Miriam Rozen, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — and Oone-Ttime Oklahoma Rresident — Sshares Tthoughts Oon Wwhat Sshe Rreads and Wwhat Sshe Ddoesn’t, TEX. AS LAW. YER BLOG (Aug. 30, 2011, 11:53 AM ), http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2011/08/us-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-one-time-oklahoma-resident-shares-thoughts-on-what-.html.36 See Simard, supra note 1312, at 688. Justice Ginsburg’s statement and actions reflect the earlier discussion on judges’ varying treatment of amicus briefs. See discussion supra Part I.37 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012).
9
[B.] Amicus Briefs Tthat Courts Ddo Nnot Consider to Bbe
Helpful
Many appellate judges agree that an amicus brief restating a
party’s argument is generally not helpful.38 According to one
judge, “‘[M]me too’ briefs, briefs that are too one-sided, or
briefs that belabor the positions of parties whose positions are
already well represented, are of no value to judges and will be
disregarded.”39 Such briefsThese may be considered an “echo” of
a party’s argument and will thus not receive any attention.40
Although there is some evidence that federal appellate-level
judges may actually appreciate these arguments,41 it does not
appear that this is true for the Federal Circuit.42
In a 2011 interview, the current chief judge of the Federal
Circuit, Randall R. Rader, said that amicus briefs are most
helpful to him if they “don’t just repeat the arguments made by
one of the parties.” 43 Chief Judge Rader then went on to
38 See id. at 925 n.8. Maples v. Thomas, --- U.S. ----, No. 10-63, slip op. at 3, 17 n.8 (Jan. 18, 2012).39 Justice Alito’s comments in Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 293 F.3d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 2002) suggest that he may be in this camp. See, discussion supra Part I.40 See Huffman, supra note 22, at 27.41 See Randall R. Rader, Transcript: The Honorable Judge Randall R. Rader, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: The Most Pressing Issues in IP Law Today, 2 CYBARIS AN INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 1, 10 (2011).42 See id. at 4, 10; Smith, supra note 4342, at 6 (quoting Chief Judge Rader as saying “[y]Yes, I like amicus briefs.”).43 See Huffman, supra note 22, at 26; Smith, supra note 4342, at 6.
10
reiterate former Chief Judge Michel’s sentiments: “The best
amicus briefs try to help us see the implications of our cases
long term . . . .”44 He further described the types of long-
range predictions that he finds most helpful as: ones with
“statistics and insights into how the court’s cases would have
some impact downstream in the marketplace.”45
III. Brief Overview of the Federal Circuit’s Approach to Amicus
Briefs
From the outside, the Federal Circuit appears to be more
amenable to amicus briefs than other courts of appeals. As this
partsection will explain, the Federal Circuit’s local rule on
amicus briefs and the previously mentioned judicial comments on
them signal that the court is receptive to prospective amici.
A. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 and the Federal
Circuit’s Local Rule
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”) 29 governs
amicus briefs.46 andIn general, FRAP 29 guides federal courts of
appeals and their parties on how to approach themamicus briefs.47
The ruleIt explains (1) when amicus briefs are permitted; (2)
whatrequired motions are required for filing thesefor leave to
file the briefs; (3) the contents and form of an amicus brief;
(4) the permissible length of an amicus briefs; (5) the time for 44 See supra note. 76 and accompanying text.45 See Huffman, supra note 22, at 26.46 See, e.g., Smith, supra note 4342, at 6.47 The remainder of this Section will analyze these actions.
11
filing them; (6) the general bar on amici submitting reply
briefs; and (7) the general bar on amici participating in oral
arguments.48 Like the other courts of appeals, the Federal
Circuit follows FRAPRule 29, but it has also supplemented the
FRAP with its own local rule.49 That additional rule suggests
that the Federal Circuitit may be more proactive about securing
amicus briefs than other circuits.50 Federal Circuit Local Rule
29(b) states:
List of Amicus Curiae. The clerk will maintain a list of bar associations and other organizations to be invited to file amicus curiae briefs when the court directs. Bar associations and other organizations will be placed on the list if they request. The request must be renewed annually not later than October 1.51
No other circuit’s local rules discuss the maintenance of an
amici list that it will use to solicit briefs. Instead, other
circuits’ local rules deal only with what the court would do if a
brief would cause recusal of a judge,52 filing of briefs when a
rehearing has been ordered,53 word limits,54 making a motion to
file briefsthem,55 and filing of a letter in lieu of a brief.56
48 See, e.g., Smith, supra note 4342, at 6.49 See infra III.A.2.50 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clerk was unable to provide this information.51 See M. Maropakis Carpentry v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed Cir. 2010).52 ISee id. at 1327.53 Id. at 1325.54 See id. at 1326.55 Id.56 Id.
12
The list that Federal Circuit Local Rule 29 refers to,
however, is minimal. The current list has but eight associations
and organizations on it.57 None of these are solely dedicated to
government contracts practice.58 And aAlthough the list includes
the Department of Justice and the Federal Circuit Bar Association
— two groups that have some government contracts attorneys -, the
majority of the groups listed are not related to government
contracts at all.59 Rather, Tthe five remaining groups are
intellectual-property associations/organizations, and one is the
National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates.60
B. The Federal Circuit’s Commentary on Amicus Briefs
For courts following FRAP 29, three approaches to amicus
briefs emerge: (1) preventing their filing; (2) liberally
allowing them but not reading them all; and (3) encouraging them
and reading them. The Federal Circuit’s leadership has attempted
to characterize the court as falling within the third approach.
Indeed, beyond the court instituting the Local Rule 29 list,
57 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (Supp. IV 2010). 58 See M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 182, 202-03 (2008). As the court noted, the definition of a “claim” is not defined by the CDA; thus, courts rely on the FAR definition. Id. at 195 (citing FAR 2.101). The FAR requires the insertion of a contract disputes clause which defines a claim as a demand for (1) “the payment of money in a sum certain,” (2) “the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms,” or (3) “other relief arising under or relating to [the] contract.” FAR 52.233-1(c).59 See M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d at 1329-3031.60 See iIdSee id. at 1329-30.
13
Chief Judge Rader and former Chief Judge Michel’s comments
suggest that the Federal Circuit may be one of the circuit courts
most open to amicus briefs.61
The first approach — preventing the filing of amicus briefs
at the appellate level — is the minority approach.62 Under this
view, which is supported by the Seventh Circuit (and in
particular, Judge Posner), courts should only accept amicus
briefs in three limited circumstances. 63 These circumstances are
when: (1) “in a case in which a party is inadequately
represented,;” (2) “in which the would-be amicus has a direct
interest in another case that may be materially affected by a
decision in this case,;” or (3) “in which the amicus has a unique
perspective or specific information that can assist the court
beyond what the parties can provide.”64
Under the second approach, some judges have stated that they
do not try not to prevent amicus filings but nonetheless tendthat
they simply do not to read every brief filed. For
exampleinstance, in August 2011 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
stated, “I have to confess, I don’t read all of [the amicus
briefs filed]. In fact, I don’t read most of them.”65 Her 61 See generally, iISee id.62 See iId. at 1323, 1332.63 See iId. at 1331 (citing Sun Eagle Corp. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 465, 477 (1991); Elgin Builders, Inc. v. United States, 10 Cl. Ct. 40, 44 (1986)).64 Id. M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc., 609 F.3dSee id. at 1330-31.65 As mentioned above, “ripple effects” often concern judges. See Walbolt & Lang, supra note 3332, at 277 (quoting Florida
14
comment should, however, be considered with her explanation of
which ones she does read. A 2008 law -journal article cited a
personal interview with Justice Ginsburg where she explained that
her clerks delineate which amicus briefs to skip, which to skim,
and which to read in full.66 Furthermore, looking at Justice
Ginsburg’s opinions, it is clear that she and her staff do read
some briefs; for instance, her Maples v. Thomas67 opinion,
announced in 2012, cited multiple amicus briefs.68
Going beyond the Ginsburg-type approach, tThe third approach
to amicus briefs involvesincludes judges who not only appear to
read theamicus briefs but have openly stated that they find such
briefsthem particularly useful.69 For exampleinstance, former
Justice Charles T. Wells).66 See, e.g., Kara M. Sacilotto, When Is a “Defense” a “Claim”?: Federal Circuit Finds No Jurisdiction over Government-Caused Delays Defense Because Contractor Did Not File Its Own Claim, WILEY REIN LLP ( Summer 2010), http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&newsletter=3&id=6266 (last visited May 3, 2012); Jocelyn Allison, Fed. Circ. Puts Contractors on Offense in Maropakis, LAW360, http://www.law360.com/articles/189380 (last visited May 3, 2012).67 See, e.g., Sacilotto, supra note 9691; McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, Contractors Beware — Federal Circuit Holds that a Contractor May Not Present Factual Defenses to the Government’s Liquidate Damages Assessment Because the Contractor Failed to Submit a Certified Claim for Time Extensions, MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP (July 6, 2010), http://www.mckennalong.com/publications-advisories-2345.html (last visited July 15, 2012).68 Allison, supra note 9691 (quoting attorney Kevin Cosgrove at Hunton & Williams LLP).69 See, e.g., Ralph C. Nash, Jr., Defense to a Government Claim is a Contractor Claim: A Weird Thought, 24 NASH & CIBINIC REP. ¶ 42, at 135 (Sep. 2010) (explaining Maropakis “flies in the face of the congressional purpose of providing contractors a fair procedure for resolving disputes”); Steven L. Schooner,
15
Chief Judge Michel, stated “that amicus briefs were very
important in helping the [Federal Circuit]court to determine
whether to take a particular case en banc.”70 The current Chief
Judge of the Federal Circuit has recognized that there are some
practical difficulties in filing amicus briefs,71 but like Chief
Judge Michel he also has encouraged their submission whenever
possible.72
IV. Forgetting What the Other Wants: Why the Use of Amicus
Briefs Could Be Better
If Federal Circuit Local Rule 29 and the court’sits chief
judges have explicitly and implicitly stated that amicus briefs
will be considered,73 why aren’t there more amicus briefs filed
Postscript: Defense to a Government Claim is a Contractor Claim, 26 NASH & CIBINIC REP. ¶ 6, at 18 (Feb. 2012) (“i[I]t seems unduly formalistic and suggests that the majority were neither interested in protecting nor uniquely concerned about the interests of the Government contractor community.”). 70 See Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 38, 47, 48 n.14 (2011) (discussing how application of Maropakis may create a “Hobson’s choice” for contractors and spending a 54-line footnote to distinguish its case from Maropakis); see also Nat’l Fruit Prod. Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Agric., CBCA No. 2445, 12-1 BCA ¶ 34,979, at 171,932.71 For instance, the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United StatesA-12 case had one amicus brief filed when it was before the Federal Circuit in 2009. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 567 F.3d 1340, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In that case, the Federal Circuit opinion, which Chief Judge Michel authored, considered the amicus position, citing its arguments several times. Id. at 1351, 1354.72 210 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000).73 Such a failure to discuss or even mention an amicus argument suggests that the judge did not appreciate the argument made in the brief or that it has ended up in a “skip” pile. See Simard, supra note 1312, at 688.
16
in government contracts cases?74 As former Chief Judge Michel’s
comments suggest, both the government contracts community and the
Federal Circuit could benefit from more frequent use of amicus
briefs in government contracts appeals.75
The following will explain the issues in government
contracts amicus -briefs filedings at the Federal Circuit. It
will also suggest that when amici file briefs, both the Federal
Circuitcourt and the amici may be more concerned with their own
needs than with what the others’ needs. Nevertheless, each side
could actually reap benefits from considering the other’s’
situation.
[A.] The Federal Circuit Sends Mixed Signals on Its Approach
to Amicus Briefs, Which Ultimately DeteringDeterrings
Amici Participation
Despite the fact that the Federal Circuit’s leadership has
stated they find amicus briefs useful,76 this claim has not 74 See Richard A. Posner, The State of Legal Scholarship Today: A Comment on Schlag, 97 GEO. L.J. 845, 854 (2009) (“The period to tenure has been lengthened to enable the law school to base its decision to grant tenure on a larger sample of a candidate's written work.”).75 See Iid.76 For example, Tthe authoring judge of the Lockheed Martin Corp. opinion, —Judge Lourie, —has on multiple occasions referred to amicus briefs. See, e.g., Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. United StatesU.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 689 F.3d 1303, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012) --- F.3d ----, No. 2010-1406, slip op. at 49 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16 2012) (“Contrary to the conclusions of the district court and the suggestions of Plaintiffs and some amici . . . ”); Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350, 1361 n.6, n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting which briefs supported which parties).
17
necessarily been reflected in all of the court’s opinions.77
Thus, despite the fact that some Federal Circuit judges have said
they are explicitly open to amicus filings,78 other Federal
Circuit judges’ actions may deter amicus filings.79
77 See, e.g., Ass’n for Molecular Pathology, 689 F.3d at 1330 --- F.3d ----, No. 2010-1406, slip op. at 49 (Fed. Cir.); Marine Polymer Techs., 672 F.3d at 1361 n. 6, n.7; Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 672, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Wolfchild v. United States, 559 F.3d 1228, 1236-37 n. 4 (Fed Cir. 2009).78 In contrastConversely, the briefs submitted in the cases noted in note. 117111 generally were framed as providing policy positions—even when grounded in the law. See, e.g., Brief for Nike, Inc. as Amicus Curiae Supporting AppellantsSubmitted with Leave of the Court at 1-2, Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (No. 2006-1562), 2007 WL 3192566 (setting forth four arguments in an en banc rehearing: (1) the panel decision conflicts with its purpose in practice,; (2) the panel decision conflicts with the court’s precedentnce,; (3) the panel decision cannot be applied with consistency,; and (4) the panel decision will create confusion in an already confusing analysis).79 For instance, cCompare Brief for The Committee on Government Business of Financial Executives International as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellee at 2-3, ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (No. 2009-5036), 2009 WL 2610094 (“The g[G]overnment’s interpretation of ‘required in the performance of a contract’ ignores the regulatory system created by FAR Part 31 and [Cost Accounting Standards (CAS)]CAS within which the definition operates. Instead, the [G]government argues the instant case from a strained interpretation of regulatory history and rejection of directly pertinent case precedent.”), with Brief of Plaintiff-Appellee at 13, ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (No. 2009-5036), 2009 WL 2405124 (“The g[G]overnment’s argument is wrong. It is the g[G]overnment’s argument that runs contrary to the expansion of [Independent Research and Development (IRAD)]IR&D intended by Congress and the intent of the drafters of the CAS and FAR provisions relating to IR&D.”).
18
[1.] Federal Circuit Local Rule 29 Hhas Nnot Been
Utilized to Appeal to the Government Contracts
Community
To date, Tthere has beenis no evidence that there have been
any outreachcalls to the government contracts community by means
ofmade through the Federal Circuit Local Rule 29 list.80
Nevertheless, there are areas where it could be used
easily.However, reaching out toIndeed, the government contracts
community’s couldresponse to some cases suggests at least one
area where such calls may be particularly useful, especially:
when the Federal Circuit decidesing a case that appears to have
no grounding in binding precedent. Why such outreach is
necessary can be illustrated by theTthe decision in M. Maropakis
Carpentry, Inc. v. United States decision,81 and the government
80 See Brief of Hughes Electronics Corp. & Raytheon Co. as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellants, Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, 210 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (No. 99-5039), 1999 WL 34766254 (“For assuming [risks under fixed-price contracts], the express terms of the Internal Revenue Code (section 41) and the express decision of this Court (Fairchild Industries, Inc. v. United States, 71 F.3d 868 (Fed. Cir. 1995)) grant government contractors the research tax credit.”); Brief of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellant at 2, Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, 210 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (No. 99-5039), 1999 WL 33612592 (“Lockheed Martin is entitled to a tax credit for its qualified research expenditures under the contracts here in issue. Under the relevant provisions of these fixed-price development contracts, Lockheed Martin retained the rights to use and apply the results of its research.”).81 See Walbolt & Lang, supra note 3332, at 308.
19
contracts community’s subsequent reactions to it, illustrate the
utility such outreach could provide.
In this 2010 case, a contractor sought to prove that
jurisdiction over its suit existed at the Court of Federal
Claims.82 M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. (“Maropakis”) had held a
contract for replacing windows and a roof on a Navy building.83
There were issues in completing the performance of the contract,
and Maropakis brought suit at the Court of Federal Claims.84
Maropakis claimed that it was entitled to time extensions and
thus a remittance of the liquated damages that the Government had
assessed and withheld.85 The Government then brought a
counterclaim in response for the balance of its liquidated
damages assessment.86
The Court of Federal Claims, found that the two letters
Maropakis had submitted to the Contracting Officer (“CO”) did not 82 See id.; Lynch, supra note 23, at 42.83 See Simard, supra note 12, at 688. 84 And, indeed, the courts’ holdings suggests that they were correct in that the Federal Circuitwhen they held in the position that the amici supported. See generally ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, 210 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000).85 See, e.g., Flango et al, supra note 31, at 187. TheAn amicus brief’s summary of the argument section is of particular importancehighlighted here because it willis one of the most important parts of any amicus brief and typically determine how closely any amicus’ arguments will be read. See Lynch, supra note 1514, at 44, 45 (explaining that when clerks screen amicus briefs for their justicejudge, they rely on the summary of arguments, table of contents, and section headings). Using this information, the clerk “tells his justice not to read the briefs that just repeat arguments . . . .” Id. at 45.86 See Bennett, supra note 109, at 886.
20
satisfy the Contracts Disputes Act (“CDA”)87) claim
requirements.88 On its appeal to the Federal Circuit, Maropakis
argued that the decision below wrongly prohibited the court from
considering its defense to the Government’s claim.89
Essentially, the contractorit argued that a valid CDA claim was
not necessary because its “claim” for a time extension was
actually a “defense” to the government’s claims for liquidated
damages.90 Thus, the appeal turned on whether or not a
contractor needed to present the CO with a valid CDA claim before
asserting an affirmative defense to a government claim.91
A 2-1 majority of the Federal Circuit panel found that the
contractor had not brought a valid CDA claim.92 In addressing
the contractor’s new argument about making a defense rather than
a claim, the Federal Circuit did not rely on any binding
precedent, but. Iinstead it relied on decades-old decisions of
the Claims Court.93 In doing so, it held that when a contractor
87 Collins & Martinek, supra note 11, at 128 (explaining that most appeals end at the circuit-court level).88 Terry Elaine Miller, The Federal Circuit-Year Three: Emerging from Infancy, 35 AM. U. L. REV. 1121, 1122 (1986).89 Collins & Martinek, supra note 1211, at 128. (explaining that most appeals end at the circuit court level).Id.90 Id.91 See Court Jurisdiction, supra note 43.92 David C. Thompson & Melanie F. Wachtell, An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: The Call for Response and the Call for the Views of the Solicitor General, 16 GEO. MASON L. REV. 237, 267 (2009).93 Roy E. Hofer, Supreme Court Reversal Rates: Evaluating the Federal Courts of Appeals, LANDSLIDE, Jan.uary-/Feb.ruary 2010, at 8, 9. There is, however, a sense that the Supreme Court has
21
raises a “defense” that has the same basis as a possible claim,
that “defense” must also meet CDA claim requirements.94
The precedent set inial Maropakis decision has created more
than “a “ripple effect;”95 by some accounts it has created full-
fledged waves.96 In response to the opinion, many government
contracts law firms and practice groups have issued “client
alerts” or their equivalent.97 As one government contracts
attorney told a legal publication, “‘The analysis of government
contracts disputes in terms of filing a claim and evaluating what
to put into it just got a whole lot more complicated . . . .
.’”98 Furthermore, prominent government contracts academics have
published criticisms of the opinion.99 There has also been
pushback from both of the government contracts claims-disputes
forums below the Federal Circuit.100
The discussion here of Maropakis is not intended to debate
the merits of the panel’s holding. The discussion of the case
and the reactions to it is, however, intended to suggest that the
panel’s opinion could have used more legitimacy within the
begun to increase the number of cases it is taking up from the Federal Circuit. See Smith, supra note 4342, at 7.94 Hofer, supra note 132126, at 9.95 See FED . ERAL CIR . CUIT LOCAL R ULE . 29.96 See supra Part III.97 M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010).98 Huffman, supra note 2, at 27.99 Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, 210 F.3d 1366, 1367-79 (Fed. Cir. 2000).100 ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 1329, 1330-36 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
22
government contracts community (and ineven the forums below,
which the receipt and consideration of briefs filed by government
contracts related amici could have provided the court).
1.[2.] Limited Responses to Amicus Submissions Creates
Little to No Incentive for the Government
Contracts Community to File Future Amicus Briefs
Although there are some cases in which the Federal Circuit
has addressed amici’s arguments,101 the court has also issued its
fair share of opinions that have failed to address filed amicus
briefs all. For exampleinstance, thea 2000 Lockheed Martin Corp.
v. United States102 opinion did not mention any of the briefs that
amici filed in the appeal.103
Failing to mention amici’s arguments is not unique to the
Lockheed Martin Corp. case. The 2010 decision in ATK Thiokol,
Inc. v. United States104 case is anotherbut one more example of
101 See supra Part III.B.102 See Lynch, supra note 15, at 41 (discussing clerks’ desire to have amicus briefs in tax cases because of the complexity inherent in the law); Contract Cost Accounting, SHEPPARD MULLIN, http://www.sheppardmullin.com/practices-22.html (last visited Sept. 16, 2012) (“No aspect of [g]Government contracting differs more materially from commercial norms than the cost accounting principles with which contractors must comply. The reimbursement of costs in connection with ‘flexibly-priced’ and cost-reimbursement [g]Government contracts is subject to a startling array of extraordinarily complex rules, many of which are wholly inconsistent with customary commercial practice.”).”; see also Lynch, supra note 14, at 41 (discussing clerks’ desire to have amicus briefs in tax cases because of the complexity inherent in the law).103 See Lynch, supra note 1514, at 41.104 See Simard, supra note 1312, at 698.
23
this trend. The court issued this decision Ffour months after
Chief Judge Michel urged government contracts experts to file
more amicus briefs at the Federal Circuit, the court issued this
decision.105 ATK Thiokol , Inc. had two amicus briefs filed,106
neither of which the panel mentioned in its opinion.107
This lack of acknowledgement of an amici’s argument has
impacts beyond the current opinion. It sends an implicit message
to the potential amicus brief filers — and to the government
contracts community as a whole — that the Federal Circuitcourt
may not care about what amici haveit has to say.108 Such anThis
implicit message serves as a deterrent for future filings.109
This deterrence is best illustrated when considering the cost of
an amicus briefs.110 Amicus briefs cost clients between $10,000
and -$15,000,111 and may cost as much as $100,000.112 When there
is no guarantee that a judge will read the brief, prospective
105 See Walbolt & Lang, supra note 3332, at 277; see also Huffman, supra note 2 2, at 26; Smith, supra note 4342, at 6.106 See, e.g., Flango et al., supra note 3231, at 187; Smith, supra note 4342, at 7.107 See Huffman, supra note 22, at 276.108 Id.Huffman, supra note , at 2 at 26.6.109 Carnegie, supra note 1, at 200.110 See Paul M. Collins, Jr. & Wendy L. Martinek, Who Participates as Amici Curiae in the U.S. Courts of Appeals?, 94 JUDICATURE 128, 128 (2010) (explaining that there is limited information on amicus curiae at the courts of appeals).111 See Andrew Frey, Amici Curiae: Friends of the Court or Nuisances?, 33 No. 1 LITIG., Fall 2006, at ATION 5, 6 (2006).112 See, e.g., Simard, supra note 1312, at 697 (“Amicus curiae briefs offered by governmental entities were favored at all levels of the federal bench.”).
24
amicus filers have little incentive to pay the legal fees.113 A
lack of acknowledgement may deter academics as well. Although
academics would not hire outside counsel to write their briefs,
they must justify their work to deans and other supervisors.114
Without proof that the panels are reading their briefs,
professors will likely face pressure to use their hours on other
projects or on publication.115
[B.] Courts Generally Ddo Nnot Read Briefs with the Types of
Arguments That Government Contracts Amici Have
Presented toat the Federal Circuit
Looking at the same issue from the Federal Circuit’s point
of view, it becomes apparent that neither of the judges who
authored the Lockheed Martin Corp. and ATK Thiokol, Inc. opinions
seems completely averse to amicus briefs.116 Indeed, both of
those judges have acknowledged amici’s arguments in other
cases.117 Thus, the fact that these judges did not mention the
amicus briefs in the Lockheed Martin Corp. and ATK Thiokol, Inc.
opinions suggests there may be something the government contracts
amici could be doing better. 113 ISee id. More than 96% of circuit-court judges who responded to an academic survey stated that government amicus briefs are at least moderately helpful if not very helpful. Id.114 See Iid.115 Id.116 Id. at 697-98.117 See Lynch, supra note 1514, at 46-47. Solicitor General amicus briefsThese are given greathigh consideration because of the perceived high level of research, reliability, and impartiality attributed to themthe briefs. Id. at 47.
25
In both cases, the amici did not frame the arguments in a
manner that suggested the briefs contained the kind of
information that judges say they want from amici.118 In the ATK
Thiokol , Inc. case, the amici provided arguments that were
comparable to one of the party’s arguments.119 Similarly, in
Lockheed Martin Corp., the amicus briefs provided additional
arguments to support the basis of the contractor’s legal
reasoning.120 However, Tthese reiteration arguments are
typicallythe type that “are of no value to judges and will be
disregarded.”121
Thus, framing the briefs as based on arguments similar to
the appellee’s argument suggested they provided information that
was nearly exactly what many judges have said they are not
looking for in amicus briefs.122 For judges who may make
Ginsburg-like piles123 of amicus briefs, this type of brief will
likely be skipped when the parties have adequate representation.
118 See id. at 49.119 See id.120 Frey, supra note 1817, at 6.121 See Lynch, supra note 1514, at 41.122 Id. at 52. ; sSee also Simard, supra note 1312, at 698 (“As experts in particular fields of law, professors are able to offer an informed legal analysis of a pressing legal question from a relatively neutral perspective.”).123 See Lynch, supra note 1514, at 41. The areas of particular import note to these former clerks are tax, patent, trademark, and Employment Retirement Income Security Act. Id.
26
Therefore, Rregardless of whether these amici were correct
in their arguments,124 the Federal Circuitcourt likely did not
cite or address these arguments because they were not framed as
the type of arguments that the Federal Circuit judges wanted to
hear.125
V. Winning to “Our” Way of Thinking: Trying to See Things from
the Other’s Point of View
Both the Federal Circuit and the government contracts
community would benefit from adjustments to amicus brief filings
at the Federal Circuit. As mentioned above, courts have an
incentive to encourage strong amicus briefs: they want their
decisions to come out the “right” way..126 They want to come out
the “right” way.
For the government contracts community, improving amicus -
brief filings at the Federal Circuit is necessary due to the
court’s status as the apparent court-of-last-resort for
government contracts cases.127 Indeed, in government contracts
cases, the Federal Circuit is often a party’s last chance of 124 See Simard, supra note 13, at 690 n.94. Legal arguments that present an argument missing from the parties’ briefs are, however, considered helpful. Id. at 690.See Simard, supra note 12, at 690.125 ISee id. But see Walbolt & Lang, supra note 3332, at 308 (“Judges generally will welcome briefs that present an important perspective or legal argument that otherwise might be overlooked by the main litigants . . . .”).126 See Walbolt & Lang, supra note 3332, at 308; Lynch, supra note 1514, at 43, 45; Simard, supra note 1312, at 694-95. 127 Walbolt & Lang, supra note 3332, at 308.
27
winning a case.128 Sscholars have noted that “for all practical
purposes, the courts of appeals are the appellate courts of last
resort in the federal judicial system . . . .” 129 This is due to
“how few appeals are disposed of by the Supreme Court and how
many appeals are disposed of by the courts of appeals.”130
Viewing a circuit court as the court-of-last-resort is
particularly accurate when considering the Federal Circuit, which
has a unique set of appellate jurisdiction.131 Because the
Federal Circuit is the only appellate court hearing government
contractthese cases, there is never a circuit split on decisions,
which is a key signal to the Supreme Court that it should grant
certiorari.132 Indeed, over a 10-year span, the Federal Circuit
had only 30 cases reviewed by the Supreme Court.133 Thus, at a
court that has about 1,500 appeals terminated there annually, and
has an average of just 3 cases per year that are taken up by the
Supreme Court,134 and has an average of just 3 cases per year that
are taken up by the Supreme Court, it makes sense to consider the
128 Id. at 277.129 Simard, supra note 1312, at 694-95.130 See , e.g., Huffman, supra note 22, at 26 (explaining that former Chief Judge Michel has requested amicus briefs that look at practical aspects in the marketplace).131 See S. Lloyd Smith, An Interview with Chief Judge Randall R. Rader, LANDSLIDE, Mar.ch-/Apr. 2011, at 5, 6-7. Although Chief Judge Rader was addressing how amicus briefs may be useful in patent cases, he did not appear to limit his thoughts to those types of cases. See id. at 6-7.132 Id. at 6.133 Id. at 7.134 See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.
28
Federal Circuit as the Supreme Court of government contracts for
all practical purposes.
Therefore, both the Federal Circuit and the government
contracts community must accept the Federal Circuit’s “Supreme
Court of Government Contracts” status and treat amicus briefs
there as such. In arguing this, thise Notearticle will
challenges both the community and the Federal Circuitcourt to
make adjustments and show that each side is willing to be a
better “friend” for the sake of the interests ofin order to best
influence government contracts law.
[A.] The Federal Circuit Should Address Briefs Tthat Amici
File and Use Federal Circuit Local Rule 29 to Ask for
More Policy -Related Briefs
If Federal Circuit judges want to improve the usefulness of
amicus briefs they see, there are at least two ways that they can
be proactive in that endeavor. First, Federal Circuit judges
should take advantage of Federal Circuit Local Rule 29 and ask
for amici to file briefs in government contracts cases.135 In
particular, when there is no binding precedent on an issue that
the court must address, the court should reach out to the
government contracts community.136 Even if the parties have not
characterized anthe issue as one of first impression, —as
135 See FED.ERAL R.ULE OF APP.ELLATE P.PROCEDURE 29.id.136 Id.
29
occurred in Maropakis,137 —the Federal Circuit shoulda Supreme
Court of Government Contracts must treat it as one when
applicablelbe. And because cases of first impression should be
fully considered in light of the law as well as the “downstream”
effects,138 such decisions should have amicus input.
The second way that the Federal Circuit could be more
proactive is by addressing arguments that amici present. Even if
a panel does not find amicus briefs particularly helpful in a
decision, the judges can improve future amicus brief submissions
by explaining why the amicus arguments were not useful. Simply
not addressing the arguments, —as what happened in Lockheed
Martin Corp.139 and AKT Thiokol, Inc.,140 —creates a powerful
deterrent for potential government contracts amici in the
future.141
[B.] The Government Contracts Community Must Provide Briefs
Tthat Address Wwhat the Court Wants to Hear, —Not Just
What the Amicus Wants to Say
Although the Federal Circuit shouldcan make adjustments to
its approach to amicus briefs, the government contracts community
shouldcan make adjustments as well. To do so, the community must
137 See FED. CIR. R. 29. Federal Circuit Local Rule 29.138 5th CIR. R. Fifth Circuit Rule 29.1.139 9th CIR. R. 29-1 advisory committee’s noteNinth Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Rule 29-1.140 See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Circuit, List of 2012 Active Amicus Curiae Briefs (on file with the author).141 See id.
30
consider what types of arguments the court is looking to hear
from each type of amici.
The problem with considering the Lockheed Martin Corp. and
the ATK Thiokol , Inc. cases is that in some ways, the community
did consider the Federal Circuit’scourt’s needs. Cost Accounting
Standards and tax credits are difficult issues, even within the
government contracts community.142 These are indeed the types of
issues where “amicus briefs [may be] most helpful” because they
involve “highly technical and specialized areas of law, as well
as complex statutory and regulatory cases.”143 Thus, what should
be noted is that this information is generally best received from
government entities or uninterested academics who file
independent amicus briefs on behalf of neither party but simply
to explain a difficult area of the law.144
If an amicusthe brief is not coming from a government entity
or an academic, arguments should be framed as providing mostly
policy information.145 Even if the amicus is truly advocating for
one party, the most effective way to do that is by providing 142 Id. 143 Miriam Rozen, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — and Oone-Ttime Oklahoma Rresident — Sshares Tthoughts Oon Wwhat Sshe Rreads and Wwhat Sshe Ddoesn’t, TEX.AS LAW.YER BLOG (Aug. 30, 2011, 11:53 AM), http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2011/08/us-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-one-time-oklahoma-resident-shares-thoughts-on-what-.html.144 See Simard, supra note 1312, at 688. Justice Ginsburg’s statement and actions reflect the earlier discussion on judges’ varying treatment of amicus briefs. See discussion supra Part I.145 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012).
31
policy information and predictions.146 These are the “downstream”
impacts that the Federal Circuit appears to want to hear.147
VI. Conclusion
The potential of government contracts amicus briefs has not
been fully realized at the Federal Circuit. Former Chief Judge
Michel has noted that there is not the same amount of amicus
activity as in the court’s other areas of jurisdiction.148 The
limited amicus activity that has occurred, however, has received
mixed signals from the Federal Circuit. These mixed signals
deter the government contracts community from filing amicus
briefs. On the other hand, part of the cool reception may be
attributed to the types of arguments presented in the amicus
briefs, as; these arguments have not necessarily been framed in
terms of what the court is looking for.
The solutions suggested in this article challenge both the
government contracts community and the Federal Circuit to
endeavor to improve the use of amicus briefs. In encouraging
each to make some adjustments, these solutions acknowledge the
practical difficulties both sides faces. But with these
adjustments, a better relationship between the court and the
146 See id. at 925 n.8. Maples v. Thomas, --- U.S. ----, No. 10-63, slip op. at 3, 17 n.8 (Jan. 18, 2012).147 Justice Alito’s comments in Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 293 F.3d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 2002) suggest that he may be in this camp. See, discussion supra Part I.148 See Huffman, supra note 22, at 27.
32
community can “[b]egin in a friendly way.”149 The benefits of
such a relationship would not be limited to a single panel or
party; they would also provide a stronger foundation for
government contracts law.
149 See Randall R. Rader, Transcript: The Honorable Judge Randall R. Rader, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: The Most Pressing Issues in IP Law Today, 2 CYBARIS AN INTELL. PROP. L. REV. 1, 10 (2011).
33