The Eastern District of Arkansas judge issued the unusual order in response to what he sees as a gap in district court practice, where amicus briefs are rarely filed despite their potential value in complex constitutional and statutory interpretation cases. The order applies to all civil cases currently pending before Rudofsky and will be automatically entered in future cases upon filing of a complaint.
Rudofsky explained that district courts regularly handle cases presenting 'really serious issues of constitutional law or statutory interpretation that are not directly controlled by binding precedent,' where parties often lack the resources for comprehensive analysis. 'I have found that, in these cases, the parties often do not have the necessary time or economic resources to devote to full analyses of the text and history of the provision or provisions at issue,' he wrote. The judge said his 'judicial process and my decisions would likely benefit from amicus briefing on the original public meaning of the disputed provision or provisions.'
The order creates an unusual incentive for junior attorneys by guaranteeing oral argument time. 'Anyone who is the principal drafter of an amicus brief on either a dispositive motion or a motion for preliminary relief in one of my cases will be guaranteed at least ten (10) minutes of oral argument time so long as the person has been a lawyer for fewer than seven (7) years,' Rudofsky wrote.
The judge acknowledged the practical barriers to amicus participation while highlighting potential benefits for emerging lawyers. 'I recognize that amicus briefing is a costly and time-consuming endeavor,' he noted, but added that 'it is also a great way for more junior attorneys at law firms, non-profits, corporations, and government entities to gain valuable experience, make a good reputation for themselves, and get some oral argument time.'
Under the order's procedural requirements, amicus briefs must be filed within three days of the principal brief by the supported party, or within three days of the opposition brief if the amicus supports neither side. The briefs are limited to 20 pages unless the court grants leave to exceed that limit, and parties cannot fund amicus briefs or the drafter's court appearance.
The order represents an unusual approach to district court practice, where amicus briefs are typically reserved for appellate courts. Rudofsky suggested that amici could provide 'important historical context, in-depth corpus linguistics analyses, or detailed structural arguments that might not make it into the parties' briefing,' potentially enriching the quality of district court decisions on complex legal questions.
The standing order indicates Rudofsky's belief that district courts, as the first stop for many significant legal disputes, deserve the same quality of briefing typically seen in higher courts. By explicitly welcoming such participation and creating incentives for junior lawyers, the order could serve as a model for other district judges looking to enhance the quality of advocacy in their courtrooms.