Fox & Robertson has filed amicus briefs in federal appellate courts around the country as well as the Supreme Court, often in collaboration with some of our favorite nonprofit and private pro bono lawyers. Amy especially loves researching and writing about interesting ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, so feel free to reach out if you need amicus support — or just kibitizing and brainstorming.
We relaunched FoxRob 2.0 in the fall of 2021 by collaborating with an amazing team on an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, urging the Court not to gut the protections of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The case settled before it could be heard. We later co-wrote a second amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of tester standing under the ADA. The Court ultimately held that the case was moot, and did not reach the issue we briefed. We have also written or co-written amicus briefs to the Third, Ninth and Tenth Circuits.
We have worked with a number of excellent co-counsel in drafting these briefs, but our consistent collaborators in most of them have been Michelle Uzeta and Claudia Center from the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. A dreamier team of co-authors is hard to imagine.
Here is a sample of amicus briefs written or co-written by Fox & Robertson:
- National Association of the Deaf v. Trump: amicus brief supporting NAD’s efforts to cause the White House to provide sign language interpreters for presidential press briefings. Our blog post contains more detail.
- Kirola v. The City and County of San Francisco: amicus brief supporting a class of disabled San Franciscans in their almost 20-year effort to ensure that the City’s parks are accessible. My post on the Impact Fund’s Practitioner Blog has more detail.
- Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District: amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s decision, following a jury trial, to issue an overly narrow injunction and significantly reduce the damages verdict.
- Guthrey v. Alta California Regional Center: amicus brief in support of the plaintiff/appellant, arguing for a broad reach of the definition of place of public accommodation under Title III of the ADA. Amy argued the case before the Ninth Circuit, which issued a decision adopting the standard we urged. Guthrey v. Alta California Reg’l Ctr., 2024 WL 4002911 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2024).
- Langer v. Kiser: amicus brief opposing rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit’s decision recognizing tester standing under Title III of the ADA. Langer v. Kiser, 57 F.4th 1085 (9th Cir. 2023). Rehearing was denied.
- Bacote v. United States Bureau of Prisons: amicus brief to the Tenth Circuit in support of a federal prisoner, arguing for a private right of action against government agencies under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The BOP ultimately withdrew its reliance on the argument that there was no private right of action, so the court did not rule on the issue raised in our brief.
- Cropp v. Larimer County, Colorado: amicus brief in support of plaintiff/appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc before the Tenth Circuit, urging that the court recognize a broad right to effective communication in jail. The petition was denied.
- Marks v. Colorado Department of Corrections: amicus brief urging that the Tenth Circuit recognize that Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination “directly or through contractual, licensing or other arrangements.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1). The court adopted the standard we urged. Marks v. Colorado Dep’t of Corr., 976 F.3d 1087 (10th Cir. 2020).
- Mielo v. Steak ‘N Shake Operations, Inc.: amicus brief urging the Third Circuit that claims under Title III of the ADA are suitable for class certification. The court did not, ultimately, take our sage advice.
- Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Company: amicus brief urging rehearing en banc of a Ninth Circuit decision holding that a Title III plaintiff was required to list in the complaint all barriers on which they wished to proceed. Rehearing was denied.
- Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.: amicus brief in support of plaintiff/appellant urging that post-ADA construction is required to be built in full compliance with that statute’s design standards and that businesses cannot avoid that standard by providing alternative or separate customer service measures. The Court adopted most of what we argued. Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 643 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2010).