Latest episode of Making the Case available now on Spotify and Apple Podcasts
Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee, is renewing his push to bring much-needed disclosure to judicial lobbying.
Whitehouse today launched season two of his podcast, Making the Case, with an episode explaining the need for more disclosure around judicial lobbying. The new episode comes as Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) submitted an additional public comment to the Judicial Conference of the United States on its proposed rules governing the disclosure of the identity of funders amicus curiae—or “friend of the court”—briefs.
“For years, I’ve been working to shine a light on the anonymous flotillas of dark-money ‘friends of the court’ influencing the judiciary. Transparency is becoming even more important as the Trump administration’s actions are challenged in Court, and the judiciary is up against increased, improper political pressure from the MAGA world,” said Whitehouse. “The American public deserves to know who is trying to convince the Court to support Trump’s most extreme actions.”
Season two of Making the Case kicks off with William & Mary Law School professor Allison Orr Larsen and University of Massachusetts Amherst professor Paul Collins examining how amicus briefs are used to influence judicial decisions. Making the Case is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and other podcast platforms.
Whitehouse and Johnson’s new comment to the Judicial Conference follows up on a previous comment they had filed by calling out the bogus arguments against improving transparency in the judiciary. Many of these arguments come from the same dark-money front-groups trying to influence courts through amicus briefs. Whitehouse and Johnson also condemned comments by senior Senate Republicans insulting and attempting to intimidate the Judicial Conference for considering better disclosure rules.
“[W]e have always engaged the Judicial Conference in a respectful manner befitting communication with a co-equal branch of government and recognizing that protecting the integrity of the judicial process is not a partisan matter. Regrettably, instead of engaging with the Advisory Committee’s proposal in good faith, some other congressional commenters have resorted to intimidation and insults,” wrote Whitehouse and Johnson.
For years, Whitehouse has specifically urged the federal courts to adopt a stronger standard of disclosure for interests filing amicus briefs.
- Letter from Whitehouse to Supreme Court (1/4/19). The letter explained several issues with the current amicus disclosure rule and requested feedback on Whitehouse and Johnson’s AMICUS Act to improve amicus transparency. [FULL LETTER]
- Letter from Whitehouse and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) to Supreme Court (6/18/19). The letter requested information from the Supreme Court about its enforcement of its amicus disclosure rule. [FULL LETTER]
- Letter from Whitehouse and Johnson to the Supreme Court (5/13/20). The letter pointed to examples demonstrating why the current amicus disclosure rule is inadequate, including Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. and Seila Law LLC v. CFPB. [FULL LETTER]
- Letter from the Supreme Court to the Judicial Conference (9/18/20). The Supreme Court Clerk of Court forwarded his correspondence with Whitehouse and Johnson to the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, stating that the Committee “may wish to consider whether an amendment” to the lower court disclosure rule “is in order.” The Clerk stated “[t]he Committee’s consideration would provide helpful guidance on whether an amendment” to the Court’s disclosure rule is necessary because the two rules are similar. [FULL LETTER]
- Letter from Whitehouse and Johnson to the Judicial Conference (2/23/21). The letter conveyed the members’ concerns with the judiciary’s inadequate disclosure rules and included recommendations for improving the rules, such as Whitehouse and Johnson’s AMICUS Act. [FULL LETTER]
- Letter from Whitehouse and Johnson to the Judicial Conference (11/10/21). The letter responded to arguments made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in opposition to amicus disclosure. The letter noted that the Chamber is perhaps the greatest beneficiary of the judiciary’s lax disclosure requirements. [FULL LETTER]
- Letter from Whitehouse and Johnson to the Judicial Conference (11/3/22). The letter brought to the Judicial Conference’s attention Whitehouse and Johnson’s amicus brief in Moore v. Harper, which documented the failure of multiple amici in that case to disclose their connections to one another, to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and to spending to confirm multiple justices. [FULL LETTER]
- Letter from Whitehouse and Johnson to the Judicial Conference (10/26/23). The letter asked the Judicial Conference to finalize a robust rule that would strengthen transparency requirements for amicus curiae brief filers and brought to the Judicial Conference’s attention how the judiciary’s disclosure rules prevented timely exposure of multiple NRA-amicus connections in an important Second Amendment case at the Supreme Court. [FULL LETTER]
- Letter from Whitehouse and Johnson to the Judicial Conference (12/14/23). The letter brought to the Judicial Conference’s attention an article detailing how amici in major Supreme Court cases have filed briefs without disclosing their common, ideological donors—including Leonard Leo and his network of organizations. [FULL LETTER]
- Comment from Whitehouse and Johnson to the Judicial Conference (9/12/24). The comment urged the Judicial Conference to move forward with and improve upon its proposal to improve amicus disclosure transparency. [FULL LETTER]
In an essay for the Yale Law Journal in October 2021, Whitehouse showed how the Supreme Court and other appellate courts’ funding-disclosure rules for filers of amicus briefs undermine basic fairness, and discussed potential improvements to Court rules to restore the public’s faith in the judicial system.
Whitehouse has also called out the unhealthy phenomenon of secretive, coordinated flotillas of right-wing amicus briefs in Supreme Court amicus briefs of his own.
Whitehouse has long been the Senate’s leading voice for improving transparency and accountability at the Supreme Court, conducting extensive oversight of the judiciary’s interpretation of the ethics laws and their application to the Supreme Court. Whitehouse also has delivered a series of speeches on the Senate floor about the special-interest scheme to remake the judicial branch.
Whitehouse is the author of the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2023. The bill would require Supreme Court justices to adopt a code of conduct, create a mechanism to investigate and address alleged violations of the code of conduct and other laws, improve disclosure and transparency when a justice has a connection to a party or amicus before the Court, and require justices to explain their recusal decisions to the public. The Senator has also led legislation to create term limits at the Court.
