A key federal rules committee has voted to scale back a proposed transparency requirement for “friend of the court” filings, opting instead to prioritize donor privacy and avoid potential constitutional challenges.
The U.S. Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules (ACAR) voted 5–1 on Thursday to remove a controversial provision that would have required organizations filing amicus briefs to disclose certain donors. The decision narrows the scope of proposed updates to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which governs amicus curiae submissions in federal appellate courts.
The now-rejected provision would have compelled amicus filers to identify any donor who contributed more than $100 toward a brief if that donor had joined the organization within the previous 12 months. The rule was originally intended to expose individuals who temporarily join advocacy groups to influence specific legal cases.
However, committee members raised concerns that such a requirement could infringe on constitutional protections and deter participation in the legal process.
In a March letter to the U.S. Supreme Court, committee leadership warned that the disclosure rule “could interfere with the privacy of those organizations and of their members,” potentially discouraging contributions to amicus efforts. Critics argued that forced disclosure could have a chilling effect, particularly for individuals supporting sensitive or controversial legal positions.
Legal experts also questioned whether the rule would survive judicial scrutiny. Under precedents such as Buckley v. Valeo and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, government-mandated disclosure requirements must meet strict scrutiny—the highest constitutional standard—by serving a compelling interest and being narrowly tailored.
Opponents, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argued the proposal failed that test. They contended the rule unfairly targeted established organizations while placing fewer burdens on temporary groups formed solely to file a single brief, undermining the rule’s stated goal of transparency.
The proposal had previously advanced through multiple stages, including approval by the Judicial Conference, before being reconsidered amid mounting legal and practical concerns.
Amicus briefs—derived from the Latin term meaning “friend of the court”—allow individuals and organizations not directly involved in a case to present legal arguments or expertise to appellate courts. These filings often play a significant role in high-profile cases, shaping judicial reasoning and influencing broader legal outcomes.
Recent cases, including ongoing litigation such as Trump v. Barbara, have underscored the growing importance of amicus participation. Historically, landmark decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges—which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide—have attracted record numbers of such briefs.
Thursday’s vote reflects an ongoing tension in the legal system between transparency and privacy, particularly as advocacy groups and third-party stakeholders continue to play an influential role in appellate litigation.
While the revised Rule 29 will still require organizations to identify themselves and disclose their interest in a case, the removal of donor disclosure provisions signals a clear shift toward protecting associational privacy over expanding public transparency.
